On Jan 25, 2008 5:04 PM, Dan Fabulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve Loughran wrote: > > >> What I propose is that, in order to avoid destroying information, Surefire > >> should generate XML that looks like Example 7 (all-in-one-file), and not > >> try to fake it to look like Example 2 (one-file-per-class). (TestNG's > >> junit-like output also generates files like Example 7.) However, when it > >> comes time to generate an HTML report, surefire-reports will discard > >> suite-level information, and treat large suites like Example 7 as if they > >> had been presented in separate files like Example 2. I'd argue that all > >> of the other JunitReport-like tools (including Ant) should probably follow > >> the same lead. > > > > I think that if everyone else has a bug, its hard to call it a bug. More > > a presentation choice :) > > I'd thought somebody might say that! :-) Still, do you think TestNG and > other tools should therefore generate multiple XML files, to be compatible > with the other (arguably broken) reporting tools?
No, * junit report will take other sets of XSL sheets than those built in to Ant's own JAR. This allows anyone to fix the XSLs without waiting for ant's (fairly mature) release cycle. * CI tools are a separate issue. Don't know there Looking at the reports -and trying to imagine a time where I ever get to stop making meta-RPM-RPMs (don't ask), I do want to push the test formats forward in a way everyone is happy. I really dont like the way the current stuff sticks summary info as toplevel attributes (time, results), as it stops us streaming out the XML as we go. I'm starting to wonder if we couldnt move to a new format, and have the option of XSL generation of the legacy stuff, purely for those tools that havent been upgraded in sync. -steve
